"Joe, what is the evidence for a designer? What is the hypothesis that is used in experiments to test for a designer? What is the unit of measurement for information? How do you measure said information for an organism (you pick, but show your work)? What values for said information indicate design? Why? Is it a scale or is it fixed? Why? What is materialism (trick question)? What is evolution?"

Now, Joe, coward. Answer the questions. These are the things you've been preaching about for well over 3 years now (that I'm aware of). Answer the questions... unless you can't (and we both know you can't).

Answer the questions or admit that your entire set of ID notions are based on your belief in them and faith that there is an intelligent designer.

Or you can do as normal and try to redirect the conversation, call me names, cuss at me, or run away to your blog and put up scathing posts about me that only you and Richard ever see.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Meanwhile, back at the tard farm, dickless Joe Gallien is ratcheting up the rhetoric against Dr. Liddle:

Quote

JoeTard: You are confused as the septic zone promotes bald assertions and demonstrates a total lack of posting in good faith.

They couldn’t support the claims of their position if their lives depended on it. But that doesn’t stop them from baldly declaring that their position has all the evidence and can account for everything.

I have called out Liz, many times, for her bald assertions and all she does is repeat them. And that is beyond pathetic.

So perhaps when they lose their cowardice and actually start trying to support their position more IDists will start showing up over there. But I don’t see that happening in my life time.

The cowardly piece of shit got his ass handed to him at TSZ, them got himself banned for posting porn, then throws rocks at people from a place where he knows they can't answer. Joe Gallien has to be the most cowardly douche I've ever seen.

1- No evidence that I got my ass handed to me over on TSZ

2- No evidence that i posted porn

3- YOU are just one of the biggest cowardly piece-of-shit ever- along with all you evo stroke-butties

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Joe is very lucky to have the stern hand of KF correcting him. Joe knows his place - subservient and grovelling to KF.

Didn't he admit to posting porn on the thread where KF smacks his ass? Wouldn't that contradict his claim of there being no evidence of his posting porn? I can't be bothered to go look for it--once was enough but I'm sure you intrepid tard-miners will not disappoint.

Joe is very lucky to have the stern hand of KF correcting him. Joe knows his place - subservient and grovelling to KF.

Didn't he admit to posting porn on the thread where KF smacks his ass? Wouldn't that contradict his claim of there being no evidence of his posting porn? I can't be bothered to go look for it--once was enough but I'm sure you intrepid tard-miners will not disappoint.

On a technicality, he is arguing that the 'tunie' image is not pornographic. (So KF must be absolutely OK with it...?) He has also argued that he did not post it to several sites, but to one, with links on the other sites. All of which makes it just fine and dandy. No further questions, Your Honor.

--------------SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like â€śI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,â€ť you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

JoeTard provides more "no way anyone could possibly be that stupid!" moments than all the other IDiots put together.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place weâ€™re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

Joe is very lucky to have the stern hand of KF correcting him. Joe knows his place - subservient and grovelling to KF.

Didn't he admit to posting porn on the thread where KF smacks his ass? Wouldn't that contradict his claim of there being no evidence of his posting porn? I can't be bothered to go look for it--once was enough but I'm sure you intrepid tard-miners will not disappoint.

On a technicality, he is arguing that the 'tunie' image is not pornographic. (So KF must be absolutely OK with it...?) He has also argued that he did not post it to several sites, but to one, with links on the other sites. All of which makes it just fine and dandy. No further questions, Your Honor.

He's cherry picked a definition that he then has to still misinterpret to claim "it's not porn".

I see that Allan Miller has gone off of the edge- earth to Allan- there isn’t any physio-chemical connection between the nucleotide (codon) and the amino acid it represents- the codon does not become the amino acid via some chemical reaction.

Yes there are chemical connections/ bonds between the nucleotides. Yes there are chemical connections/ bonds between the tRNA and its amino acid. Yes there are chemical connections/ bonds between the amino acids in the polypeptide. And all of that is irrelevant to what I said.

Let's see what 35 seconds of reading on the interwebs says on the topic. I use wikipedia because (sadly) that's all that's needed.

Quote

Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase (an enzyme) catalyzes the bonding between specific tRNAs and the amino acids that their anticodon sequences call for. The product of this reaction is an aminoacyl-tRNA molecule. This aminoacyl-tRNA travels inside the ribosome, where mRNA codons are matched through complementary base pairing to specific tRNA anticodons. The ribosome has three sites for tRNA to bind. They are the aminoacyl site (abbreviated A), the peptidyl site (abbreviated P) and the exit site (abbreviated E). With respect to the mRNA, the three sites are oriented 5’to 3’ E-P-A, because ribosomes moves toward the 3' end of mRNA. The A site binds the incoming tRNA with the complementary codon on the mRNA. The P site holds the tRNA with the growing polypeptide chain. The E site holds the tRNA without its amino acid. When an aminoacyl-tRNA initially binds to its corresponding codon on the mRNA, it is in the A site. Then, a peptide bond forms between the amino acid of the tRNA in the A site and the amino acid of the charged tRNA in the P site. The growing polypeptide chain is transferred to the tRNA in the A site. Translocation occurs, moving the tRNA in the P site, now without an amino acid, to the E site; the tRNA that was in the A site, now charged with the polypeptide chain, is moved to the P site. The tRNA in the E site leaves and another aminoacyl-tRNA enters the A site to repeat the process

If I understand what you are saying Joey Bunny, your claim is that because DNA is transcribed into mRNA and then translated into proteins, that there is no direct chemical linkage between the DNA and the protein.

I guess you could argue that point, if you knew nothing about the biochemistry of how the entire system works. The simple fact that there is a 1:1 correspondence between DNA nucleotides and RNA nucleotides and a 1:1 correspondence between tRNA and mRNA and a 1:1 correspondence between amino acids and tRNA... nope doesn't mean a thing. There's absolutely no chemical linkage between anything. It's all just totally random... isn't that what you're saying, moron?

Edited by OgreMkV on Aug. 30 2012,09:38

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

The simple fact that there is a 1:1 correspondence between DNA nucleotides and RNA nucleotides and a 1:1 correspondence between tRNA and mRNA and a 1:1 correspondence between amino acids and tRNA... nope doesn't mean a thing.

A small quibblette - only the first is a 1:1 correspondence. More than 1 tRNA can dock to the same mRNA codon due to 'wobble', and multiple tRNAs get charged by the same aaRS. Which are actually chemical reasons why Joe is wrong. The 'real' code isn't a neat reversible lookup matrix, like ASCII or something. If it were all 1:1, he might have a better point on 'information' - though it would still be chemistry.

--------------SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like â€śI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,â€ť you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

The simple fact that there is a 1:1 correspondence between DNA nucleotides and RNA nucleotides and a 1:1 correspondence between tRNA and mRNA and a 1:1 correspondence between amino acids and tRNA... nope doesn't mean a thing.

A small quibblette - only the first is a 1:1 correspondence. More than 1 tRNA can dock to the same mRNA codon due to 'wobble', and multiple tRNAs get charged by the same aaRS. Which are actually chemical reasons why Joe is wrong. The 'real' code isn't a neat reversible lookup matrix, like ASCII or something. If it were all 1:1, he might have a better point on 'information' - though it would still be chemistry.

hmm... cool... so there's all these different ways that mutations to the protein can happen, even if the DNA isn't mutated.

Cool.

Thanks for the info!

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I think it's cute how you credit Joe with actually having an argument rather than just typing random phrases.

i think OM should write a joetard algorithm. would be really simple programming i bet. some function to use clusters of buzz words then random alliterative draws from a population of vulgarities and slightly spoonerized curses, punctuated with ya see, IOW, and other assburger type spittle flecked typo rants. hell for all i know there are three or four of you guys pretending to be this moron

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

"Joe, what is the evidence for a designer? What is the hypothesis that is used in experiments to test for a designer? What is the unit of measurement for information? How do you measure said information for an organism (you pick, but show your work)? What values for said information indicate design? Why? Is it a scale or is it fixed? Why? What is materialism (trick question)? What is evolution?"

Now, Joe, coward. Answer the questions. These are the things you've been preaching about for well over 3 years now (that I'm aware of). Answer the questions... unless you can't (and we both know you can't).

Answer the questions or admit that your entire set of ID notions are based on your belief in them and faith that there is an intelligent designer.

Or you can do as normal and try to redirect the conversation, call me names, cuss at me, or run away to your blog and put up scathing posts about me that only you and Richard ever see.

Faggot Kevin-

The DESIGN is evidence for the designer and I told you how to determine design from not. IOW the hypothesis is the same as it is for arcaeology and forensics-> namely that when agenicies act they tend to leave traces of their actions behind. But seeing that you are an ignorant fuck you won't understand that.I have also told you how to measure information in an organism. Again your faggot ignorance means nothing to me.

As for what is evolution, well I provided several definitions in my debate opening with you. Again your ignorance, while amusing, means nothing.

And yes my daughter read the debate and that is how she knows that you are a lying coward.

--------------Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

"Joe, what is the evidence for a designer? What is the hypothesis that is used in experiments to test for a designer? What is the unit of measurement for information? How do you measure said information for an organism (you pick, but show your work)? What values for said information indicate design? Why? Is it a scale or is it fixed? Why? What is materialism (trick question)? What is evolution?"

Now, Joe, coward. Answer the questions. These are the things you've been preaching about for well over 3 years now (that I'm aware of). Answer the questions... unless you can't (and we both know you can't).

Answer the questions or admit that your entire set of ID notions are based on your belief in them and faith that there is an intelligent designer.

Or you can do as normal and try to redirect the conversation, call me names, cuss at me, or run away to your blog and put up scathing posts about me that only you and Richard ever see.

Faggot Kevin-

The DESIGN is evidence for the designer and I told you how to determine design from not. IOW the hypothesis is the same as it is for arcaeology and forensics-> namely that when agenicies act they tend to leave traces of their actions behind. But seeing that you are an ignorant fuck you won't understand that.I have also told you how to measure information in an organism. Again your faggot ignorance means nothing to me.

As for what is evolution, well I provided several definitions in my debate opening with you. Again your ignorance, while amusing, means nothing.

And yes my daughter read the debate and that is how she knows that you are a lying coward.

Nope Joe, you have never told anyone a way to unambiguously determine if some object, any object, is designed or not.

I'll tell you what, I learn by example more than telling. So give me an example, explaining what you do and why and why the values you determine (measure or calculate) do what you say they do.

You have never, ever done that. All you have every been able to point to is an 'example' of how you determined that the definition (from a dictionary) of aardvark is some number of bits. You have never explained what value of bits separates design from non-design (and why). You have never explained why all the examples we give you of random information larger than the values you specify are not designed.

You don't do much of anything except yell. You aren't a very good teacher are you?

You have NEVER told us how to measure information in an organism. You have described how to measure the information in the English language of a dictionary definition of aardvark, but even that is incorrect in regards to Shannon information.

My ignorance is not the issue. Your inability to teach and explain your own position is the issue. I have never met anyone who feels so passionately about a subject, yet absolutely refuses to tell all the wonders of it to someone else. You are, without a doubt, weird.

Evolution is not under discussion here... still.

Your 'daughter' really read the debate? Seriously? So she knows that you didn't address a single point that I made. You utterly failed to understand the entire point of the debate. And you completely failed to convince anyone that you even know what you are talking about.

Can your 'daughter' do calculations for the amount of information in an organism? Can she determine design from non-design? Maybe she would be willing to come here and explain it, because you sure as heck can't.

Tell me Joe, what's your definition of coward... you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. You're the one who gave an empty parking lot as your address when someone offered to meet you.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.